BotB Semifinal: Team Legit vs L.A. Derby Dolls
Sat Jun 26 2010 - 04:00pm PDT(07:00pm EDT)
More coverage: Battle on the Bank III
- 2 Sarina "Deranged" Hayden
- 8 Yvonne “Goodie 2 Skates“ Van Vactor
- 9 Laura “Amanda Jamitinya“ Mann
- 12 Lacey “Carmen Getsome“ Evans
- 19 Julie “Angela Death“ Adams
- 26 Megan “Sara Problem“ Twibell
- 27 Sarina "De-Ranged" Hayden
- 31 Cecilia “Re-AnimateHer“ Hanley
- 36 Katie “Sheeza Brickhouse“ Taylor
- 55 Erica “Miss E. Vil“ McGuire
- 76 Jordan "Juliet Bravo" Burnett
- 90 Wendi "Kat Von D'Stroya" Wentzell
- 350 Caitlin “Muffin“ Krause
- 711 Robyn “Rebel Belle“ Baroh
- 0 Haught Wheels
- 13 Tough Soles
- 24 Eire Vengeance
- 33 Lace N' Arsenic
- 41 LEGacy
- 44.1 Amber Alert!
- 51 Tara Armov
- 193 Venus de Maul'r
- 360 Krissy Krash
- 516 Long Island Lolita
- 981 V. Lee
- 90210 Gori Spelling
- 1-900 Bombshell Betty
- 24/7 P.I.T.A.
- AK-47 Titty Titty Bang Bang
- OC Laguna Beyatch
- w00t STEFCON 1
DNN 2010 Core Fund Drive
Ambitious plans, Big funding goal.Learn more.
124%
Comments
holy crap.
Just got home from the bouts, this bout was nuckin futz. Allegiances to my beloved SDDD aside (which generates an inherent desire to see the LADD in the losers bracket), I am very happy for Team Legit. They are so deserving to be in the championship bout tomorrow and I can't wait to see the derby magic these two teams will make.
That being said...
The current W.O.R.D. rules (as I understand them) mandate that if a JAMMER in the final jam commits a major she can not score any points... but... what if a BLOCKER commits a major against the opposing team's JAMMER preventing her from being able to get out or get points??? Is it unreasonable to think that should carry the same ramifications? I have discussed this scenario several times with anyone that will listen and they have all said they just hope that it never happens. Well.... it happened today.
A skater for TL fell directly on the back of the LADD jammer knocking her to the track in the final jam, a total back block major (though it did appear to be unintentional it was signaled by the refs and acknowledged by the skaters involved). How is this any different than a jammer committing a major to get points in the last jam? The end result is exactly the same it is just from the defensive approach, right? I hope the W.O.R.D. rules committee sees this scenario as not only a viable and potential problem but as one that has already occurred as of today and they make the slight adjustment to the Last Jam Rule to include nullification of the ability to score points for a team if they commit a major directly against the opposing jammer if the infraction results in the jammer being taken out of play, being knocked off her skates or her progress impeded dramatically.
This seem unreasonable to anyone? Or is it the ravings of a dehydrated, sleep-deprived derby dork? Any and all input is welcomed and appreciated...
Go SDDD and thank you DNN for being DNN...
It's not that no one
It's not that no one recognizes that this is a problem. The problem is, once signed off the rules is the rules. I'd guess that they decided they didn't want every game played by different rules every month with games scheduled every three weeks or less.
The current rule is that the blocker is a ghost point. That is it. If I were a coach, I'd put on my Satan horns and encourage every blocker on my team to be as egregious as possible and stop any opposing jammer from ever exiting the pack.
It is a bit of a problem
I was thinking about this a couple of weeks ago. If you were 3 points or less ahead, you could have 3 of the blockers commit majors and just have the only "legal" blocker go to the front. Then the 3 "ghost" blockers could just do whatever to keep the opposing jammer from getting past them since the jammer couldn't score any points until she passed the "legal" jammer at the front. Is it a crappy move? Yes. But it would seem to be legal under the current rules. Problems with LJM don't happen very often but maybe often enough that another look at the rule might be called for.
I'm sure everyone can agree
I'm sure everyone can agree that refining the rule is necessary. What specifically to do without creating unforeseen consequences that are worse than the problem being addressed is the big problem.
I'm not privy to the real reasoning used for not declaring blockers permanently "out of play" when they commit majors was, but it would suck to see a bunch of blocker lumps skating around not doing anything for the duration of the remainder of the last jam. Conveying to the other players that those blockers are "out of play" wouldn't be easy either, and the case of a blocker unable to defend herself becomes an issue. That assumes the blockers even listen when commanded, but there's really no consequence to not listening, is there?
The problem is the idea that everyone who starts the jam remains on the track to the end of the jam. Pulling players down from a track that is effectively a gravity well that accelerates players as they approach the infield, even when the skater is coasting, is a challenging safety issue for the officials. Especially when jammers have been clocked at 30mph and packs at 18mph. It looks a lot simpler when you look at a slow pack scenario, but you have to account for the fastest packs too.
I say this with very limited experience...
... but what if the procedure for mid-jam penalty administration was, penalized skater must skate up to the rail and latch until the pack passes, then drop down to the center in a slow and controlled manner to start their penalties?
One recurring phenomenon I've run into from time to time in my travels is "we tried that, it didn't work," which often translates to "we tried one possible solution, it didn't really work, so we declared the problem unsolveable." Soooo many bout administration and audience comprehension problems go away when the consequences of penalties are immediate -- most definitely including this issue of last-jam behavior.
Try it in a scrimmage, at least, before rejecting it out of hand?
"Bad Ghost! Bad Ghost! You're being very naughty!"
The whole concept of ghost blockers is goofy because they can still do whatever the hell they want because majors against blockers don't prohibit scoring! May as well run up a half dozen majors in that last jam or one good rear naked choke because unless there is a rule change it is inconsequential. The idea of having skaters exit the track for major infractions in the manor Hurt described after the pack has passed during the last jam doesn't suck... I get visions of Jonathon slowly skating alone through the wreckage in Rollerball for some reason but it might work. For safety concerns though, it is probably best to let them continue to skate but with points not being possible if the jammer majored or if a blocker majored against a jammer. It is a simple concept for the skaters to get: jammer related majors means no points in the last jam. Period. And none of that crap like happened in TXRD/LADD in the 3rd place bout last Sunday when both jammers majored in the last jam but the LADD jammer had a scoring pass before she majored so they gave LADD 4 points. That's terrible. My rule change (The Bare Maximum Addendum, all rights reserved) would have it that if both sides have infractions against and/or by jammers you jam again. And obviously the officials would blow the jam dead the second that both teams had committed jammer related crimes as there is no need to continue as points can't be scored by either side. It is easy to understand and the potential for memorable drama is palpable! Can you imagine if it went two or three restarts? The crowd would go nutz!
Last jam, nothing!
If skater safety is the only issue preventing immediate penalty administration throughout the bout, and we arrive at a safe solution, apply this mechanism to the whole game! Solves a wide variety of pathological gameplay gotchas associated with next-jam penalty administration.
Also, I would like a pony.
Hail, Satan.
I get the same evil thoughts... ha! I am full aware that that falls under douchebaggery but if the blockers 'make it look like an accident' and don't resort to brass nux and Krav Maga, well, shit happens. "Sweep the leg!!!" Heh. It was just so interesting to me to have been discussing this possible scenario with skaters off and on for months and then to see it happen ten feet in front of me really made me wonder how this could not have been accounted for in the Final Jam Rule discussion. Or if it was discussed and they went with the 'keep our fingers crossed' option. No insult to the LADD, believe me, I respect the LADD with the passion of a thousand suns... but I always figured this scenario unfolding would result with the LADD skating around with a trophy and not them taking the heartbreaking loss. I say that with a smile, btw =D
I can only tell you that,
I can only tell you that, having taken a crack at the Last Jam Major rule, it is hard to craft a rule that is maximally fair, without it being overly complex and disruptive enough to cause the fans and skaters to riot.
At least with this one, people weren't throwing shoes or water bottles.
"They've taken Blaine Capatch hostage!"
The reason for the lack of Refried Porkfat on a Stick being hurled on the track and why the security go-karts in the vicinity stayed un-flipped and un-ignited and the Funnel Cake stand wasn't looted is because this happened in San Diego at the County Fair, if this had gone down like this in the Doll Factory... all I can say is God help the good people of Filipino Town =)
The LJM rule has every skater on the track all nervous and jerky already, blockers and jammers alike. Just keep it simple. Majors committed against or by jammers means no points. If blockers want to pepper spray each other and moonsault off the rail, go nutz, just nothing involving jammers. I feel this is very reasonable and not complicated. In a sport where penalties are a running occurrence and consideration and are already a huge factor to manage by all parties, this is a solution that leaves little room for ugliness, debate or controversy at the end of the bout.